World Nuclear Association (WNA)

WNA‟s Views on Bridging Science and

Values in Radiological Protection

1

Sylvain Saint-PierreDirector, WNA Outreach Initiative

Director for Environment and Radiological Protection

World Nuclear Association

2nd OECD/NEA workshop

on Science & Value in RP

Vaulx-de-Cernay, France

November 30 to

December 2, 2009

I) Setting the Scene

2

GAPScience in

RP

Values in

RP

Essential Practical Bridges for Stakeholders

Clarity on

Radiation-Risk:Definitions &

Numerical

Benchmarks

Practical

Applicability

& Potential

Implications

of RP Criteria

Regulations

Commensurate to

Actual Risk

Adds VALUENeed to aim towards a common risk-based approach for all sources

of exposure to ionising radiation

II) Public Interest in RP

3

• Pesticides and genetically modified seeds use for crops

• Chemicals and toxins in products

• Pollutants in drinking water

Should the public be more interested in RP than

anything else? Why? Test: „What are your interest

in‟ and „What you really want to know about‟ e.g.

If no or little interest => ≈ public & radiation-risk

If interested, what basics would you look for? e.g.

• Is the risk controlled by government/industry, How it is controlled,

Is it Safe (limit), What is your situation compared to others?

III) Scientific Risk, Public Health Safety,

and Stakeholder

Scientific risk & public health safety should not

be confused

• Scientists => Spectrum of risks

• Public => Safe or Unsafe

4

International & more local contexts (national and

site-specific) should also not be confused

• International: Valued participation requires competency

• More local: Valued participation of any affected parties

Confusion and ambiguities around the famous “Is

it safe?” (for very low doses < 1 mSv/y)

Most of the elite club of international RP experts

would genuinely answer…?

IT DEPENDS! (…thinking about scientific risk)

…spiralling downwards in endless explanations

that most people cannot understand

5

IV) Clarity on Radiation-Risk:

Public Communication

Is it Safe?

It depends…

• inspection reports

• air strip length

• engine reliability

• meteorological conditions

• etc

6

IV)... Radiation-Risk: Public Communication

After a week of work, would you be interested in

these details? - Never mind participating

Also, let‟s not confuse

This… That…

7

IV) ...Radiation-Risk: Public Communication

Dose limits build in comfortable safety margins

Time

Annual dose limit = 1 mSv/y

Around 100-200 mSv

Certainly no public health issues for doses < 1 mSv/y!

8

Around 1,000-2,000 mSv mSv

IV)...Radiation-Risk: Public Communication

Question - “Is it Safe?” (for doses < 1 mSv/y)

YES – Cannot afford any ambiguity on Safe or UnSafe Adds VALUE

This is the most important responsibility/duty of

the RP community – not yet fulfilled

Too scientific/vague definitions of deterministic

& stochastic risks rather maintain ambiguities –

the RP „sin‟ starts there

9

IV) Clarity on Radiation-Risk:Definition and Numerical Benchmarks for USERS

Adds VALUE

USERS need clearer definitions of radiation-risk

with numerical benchmarks

10

Dose > 1,000-2,000 mSv-Deterministic risk= meaning a health risk attributed to an exposed individual

Dose > 100-200 mSv-Stochastic risk= meaning a probability of a health risk to a given individual

among an exposed population

Dose < 100-200 mSv-Radiation risk is inconclusive, Stochastic risk is theoretically assumed

Dose < a few mSv/y- Risk so tiny that it is not part of real public health safety because radiation-

induced cancer cannot be distinguished from general cancer rate

IV) ...Definitions & Numerical Benchmarks

Adds VALUE

RP community alone falls short to fully investigate

all factors which underpin RP criteria

•Especially valid for the Practical Applicability & Potential

Implications (also part of scientific investigations)

•Also valid for broader issues that go beyond RP

11

V) Process to Set Robust RP Criteria (Users)

Adds VALUE

ICRP-IAEA must improve the process to develop

and set robust RP criteria for USERS

IAEA best to address practical applicability,

potential implications and broader issues

- provided that RP Reps from Member States also

rely on broader input (not just RP)

Should not underestimate this IAEA key role

which also serves to develop broad consensus

12

V) Process to Set Robust RP Criteria (Users)

Adds VALUE

13

Problem (1): Control of exposure depends on what

easily falls within scope of nuclear-RP regulators

•Sources (nuclear industry) that easily fall within this

scope are excessively controlled

•Otherwise comparable (higher) exposures are poorly or

not controlled (medical, air transport, other industries)

VI) Fixing Imbalanced Policies for Public Exposures

Adds VALUE

Should aim towards a common health-risk approach for

the control of all sources of exposure to ionising radiation

Problem (2): Control policies are too strict for

“tiny” public exposures from nuclear

To the point to lose sight that such doses have no

real impact on public health safety

•Natural variability of general background cancer rate (all

causes) is equivalent to a few mSv/y

14

Adds VALUE

VI) Fixing Imbalanced Policies for Public Exposures

Real gain in public radiation safety cannot be

invoked at such “tiny” public exposures

“Small square”: where it counts the most for the public!

15

Doses > 1,000-2,000 mSv

Deterministic risk = meaning

an health risk to a given individual

Doses > 100-200 mSv

Stochastic risk = meaning a

probabilistic risk to an individual

among a population

Public dose limit = 1 mSv/y Useful tool for management but a

poor indicator of real public health

Doses < 100-200 mSv

Theoretically-assumed

stochastic risk

Doses < a few mSv/y

Risk is so tiny that it

becomes irrelevant

VI) Fixing Imbalanced Policies for Public Exposures

10 -

2.4 -

1 .0 –

0.4 –

0.14 -

0.1 -

0.04 -

0.01 -

0.001 -

0.0001

World average exposure to background

natural radiation Public dose limit = 1 mSv/y

Common Exemption = 0.01 mSv/y

Diagnostic medical x-ray examinations

One single chest x-ray

One transatlantic flight

(North America to Europe)

Most exposed people to discharges from

nuclear sites over the entire yearNuclear reactors

Nuclear fuel cycle

Breaking News: Medical increased average

exposure from ≈ 3 to 6 mSv/y ! – USA data

16

CT scans+

Nuclear medecine

The rationale (common health risk approach)

for the control of public exposures is poor

Note: At very low doses, there is no trade-off between health detriment & notions likes equity, benefits, etc.

Public radiation doses (mSv)

VI) Fixing Imbalanced Policies for Public Exposures

17

As a case in point of the imbalance: Average annual individual doses

Nuclear power < 0.1% of average annual individual doses

Medical ≈ 14%, Natural background radiation ≈ 85%

Are the largest efforts on strictly controlling „tiny‟ public

exposures from nuclear sound – compared to all exposures?

VI) Fixing Imbalanced Policies for Public Exposures

18

A case in point of the imbalance: Change in average annual individual

doses due to insufficient control in the medical sector (US data)

VI) Fixing Imbalanced Policies for Public Exposures

Change

due to CT

scans and

nuclear

medicine

VII) Cases of interest: Radon, Medical,

Cardiovascular

Radon – Uranium Mining

Remains to be seen if a change of generic risk factor is

appropriate/applicable to recent or new uranium mines

WNA‟s letter to ICRP (c.c. IAEA):

1) Low-doses uranium mines are more related to modern mines

2) Smoking is a large confounding factor – uranium ore dust is an extra one

3) Expressed as radon concentration in air introduces greater uncertainties

19

Adds VALUE

Unclear if evidences will lead to a higher, constant or

even lower radon risk factor for uranium mines

VII) ...Radon, Medical, Cardiovascular

Radon – Uranium Mining

Scientific investigations not just about epidemiology,

biokinetics, dosimetry and related modelling

Practical applicability and potential implications are key:

1) Mine types: new/recent vs old; wet vs dry; underground, open-pit and ISL

2) Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Russia, South Africa and Uzbekistan

3) Other site-specific factors: ore characteristics, age of the air, etc.

20

Adds VALUE

Need balance in generic risk factor between aggregating

too different mines and too much details at very low doses

VII) ...Radon, Medical, Cardiovascular

Radon – Uranium Mining

„Process‟ and „Time‟ (3-5 yrs+) to fully investigate all

factors as part of new RP criteria are key

No room to unduly rush a change to find out in a few years

that it was incorrect – implications are too large

IAEA upcoming workshop in December is welcome

BSS revision ends in 2010 OR launch radon investigations

21

Adds VALUE

VII) ... Radon, Medical, Cardiovascular

Medical

•CT scans & nuclear medicine pose concerns. Routine

lower medical exposures remain understandably

uncontrolled as risk is too low (+ benefits)

•Yet routine exposures in nuclear are even lower

(+benefits of nuclear in terms of planet-wide protection)

Cardiovascular

•IAEA BSS draft gives numerical benchmarks that quickly

help Users knowing if topic is relevant or not

22

VIII) Foreseen RP Improvements in Nuclear

Refocusing RP on real safety gains

1) RP for workers, especially the most exposed

– Typically addressed via RP measures

2) Risk of public exposures from major accidental releases

– Typically addressed via nuclear safety measures (against core melt down

and loss of containment) and emergency preparedness

23

Adds VALUE

Reminder: Optimization (not minimization!)

There is no real gain in public radiation safety associated

with any extra measure for normal radioactive discharges

Currently offered new NPPs are all Super Safe

24

1. Choices in low-carbon Energy Sources2. Climate Change3. Planet-wide consequences on Environment & Health

With nuclear having a key rapidly growing role

IX) World Challenge on Environment & Health

• Can no longer afford safety standards that disregard benefits of nuclear

• Urgent that fictive safety do not hinder benefits

Government are urge to tackle this challenge

At the core of this World Challenge

Adds Greatest VALUE

Thank you for your attentionQuestions? saintpierre@world-nuclear.org

World Energy Outlook 2008

Electricity generation and CO2 emissions

What if the challenges of CCS for fossil fuel and of the great expansion of renewable

cannot be met in time? Is „ready-to-deploy‟ nuclear sufficiently accounted for?

25

18,921

33,265

30,186 28,997

Going from ≈ 19,000 to 30,000 TWh

over 2006 to 2030Reducing CO2 emissions from 11.4 Gt

down to ??? over 2006-2030

11.4

18.0

12.8

8.2

Over 2006-2030:Hydro ≈ x 2

Other Renewable ≈ x 12!

Nuclear ≈ x 2

Fossil fuel ≈ flat or down

(with CCS)

World population:

1950: 2.5 billions; 2009: 6+ billions; 2050: 9 billions